The Flowergate
| Decision Date | 07 April 1887 |
| Citation | 31 F. 762 |
| Parties | THE FLOWERGATE. v. THE FLOWERGATE. SLOAN |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
James Troy and John J. Allen, for libelant.
E. B Convers, for claimant.
The evidence is not sufficient to justify finding as a fact that the condition of the eye-bolt, when it was put to use at the time the plaintiff was injured through its giving way, was such as to inform anyone of the fact that the bolt was already partly broken off.The eye was counter-sunk in the deck, and the old break was below the upper surface of the deck.This location rendered the defect in truth latent.The use of an eye-bolt, apparently sufficient, but in reality insufficient...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
6 cases
-
Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc, 176
...Fed.Cas. page 310, No. 5,970; The Noddleburn, D.C., 28 F. 855; The Neptuno, D.C., 30 F. 925; The Lizzie Frank, D.C., 31 F. 477; The Flowergate, D.C., 31 F. 762; The A. Heaton, C.C., 43 F. 592; The Julia Fowler, D.C., 49 F. 277; The Concord, D.C., 58 F. 913; The France, 2 Cir., 59 F. 479; Th......
-
Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc.
...was not founded upon the absolute warranty rejected in Couch, but upon fault. See, e. g., The Noddleburn, supra; The Flowergate, 31 F. 762 (D. C. E. D. N. Y. 1887); The Lizzie Frank, 31 F. 477, 479 (D. C. S. D. Ala. 1887) (which followed Readhead v. Midland R. Co., supra, in explaining the ......
-
Dixon v. United States
...but rather one of exercising due care. The France, 2 Cir., 1894, 59 F. 479; The Concord, D.C.S.D. N.Y.1893, 58 F. 913; The Flowergate, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1887, 31 F. 762. But the cases are not clear on whether the owner would be liable to the seaman in all instances where the seaman's injury was a......
-
Lunney v. The Concord
... ... and cases there cited; The Bergenseren, 36 F. 700. The ... liability of the ship and owners to employes as respects the ... sufficiency of equipment and appliances, is not that of ... warranty, as it is in regard to goods, but only for the ... exercise of 'due diligence.' The Flowergate, 31 F ... 762; The Dago, Id. 574; The Benbrack, 33 F. 687; ... Canter v. Mining Co., 35 F. 41; 27 Stat. 445, c ... 105, § 3 ... As ... there is no evidence of negligence in regard to the ladder, ... the libel must be ... ...
Get Started for Free